Welcome & Introduction

Transcription

1 Welcome & Introduction from the Attitudes toward Marine Wildlife Survey The coastal zone of the Los Angeles region is one of the most populous and culturally diverse urban settings in the United States. It is also one of California's most valuable economic and environmental resources. People use the coastal zone for a variety of purposes: recreation, wildlife and people watching, fishing, and tourism. The coastal zone is also increasingly threatened by development and human encroachment into coastal habitat, as well as pollution from a variety of sources. Tremendous economic pressures to develop the few remaining parcels of open space fuel controversy among environmentalists, developers, and local government. As the regional population increases and becomes more diversified, conflicts over issues pertaining to human interactions with marine wildlife are becoming more commonplace. Increasing demands on recreational facilities such as beaches and boardwalks and ecological attractions such as tidepools, kelp forests, and coastal marshes are fostered by the cultural pursuits of local residents and visitors who use the coastal zone. For example, despite regulations against the collection of tidepool animals from certain Southern California beaches, lack of enforcement personnel allows people to collect unchecked creatures like limpets, mussels, and sea stars for food. Also, controversy swirls around the negative impacts of seals and sea lions on fish catches despite widespread support of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), with pinnipeds consuming less than 10% of anglers' catches. The public, however, is often horrified to learn of legal pinneped shootings and killings authorized in a 1994 amendment to the MMPA when particular creatures are deemed a threat to fish catches. Humans and animals often have conflicting needs as our paths intersect in and near the coastal zones. To gain a better understanding of relationships between Southern California's diverse population and attitudes toward marine animals in urban settings, SeaGrant funded a random telephone survey of 850 adult Los Angeles residents. We asked respondents about their attitudes, use, interactions and experiences, and knowledge of marine wildlife and the coastal zone. Specifically, we were interested in how distinct cultural groups differ in regard to their attitudes toward marine wildlife. The total survey sample was stratified by four race/ethnic groups (African-American, Asian-Pacific Islander, Latino, and White) to enable researchers to compare and contrast attitudes of culturally diverse respondents. Highlight: Of the 850 respondents to the survey, 35% were White, 35% Latino, 12% African American, and 10% Asian-Pacific Islander. Highlights presents survey results and their implications for public policy and future research. These should be of particular interest to museums, aquariums, and educators who develop environmental education and outreach materials for diverse public audiences. The contents of the series will be electronically mailed periodically over a period of four months, starting with this introductory issue. The complete collection is available here at the USC SeaGrant website. HIGHLIGHTS CONTENTS #1 - Welcome and Introduction

2 #2 - Beach Use and Cultural Diversity #3 - Attitudes toward Marine Wildlife #4 - Experience and Knowledge of Marine Wildlife #5 - Understanding Tolerance and Stigma Relating to Animal Practices SEA GRANT USC Sea Grant's mission is to fund research of the coastal regional and disseminate the results to educators, policy makers, and the public. USC Sea Grant maintains a specific thematic focus on the Urban Ocean. USC Sea Grant is part of a national network of research institutions funded through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The complete report on the results of this research, Attitudes toward Marine Wildlife among Residents of Southern California's Urban Coastal Zone (USCSG-TR ), is available for purchase through the USC Sea Grant website. We are excited to share these findings with you. If you have questions or would like further information, please contact us.

3 Beach Use and Cultural Diversity from the Attitudes toward Marine Wildlife Survey With the second largest population in the United States, Los Angeles is starved for park and recreational space, a fundamental feature of livable cities. The beach is among the last "natural" open spaces, unique because it is adjacent to the urban areas of Los Angeles, closer than most other open space resources to the densest parts of the city. Yet our beaches are increasingly threatened by pollution and other urban pressures. Closures, warnings, and advisories due to unsafe water conditions degrade the beach, limiting the already short supply of open space in LA. Pollution negatively impacts both the health of the beach ecosystem and human health. This sections focuses on LA beach use, including beach accessibility for culturally diverse residents of Los Angeles County. Data reported here are derived from the USC Sea Grant publication Attitudes toward Marine Wildlife among Residents of Southern California's Coastal Zone. Overall beach use activities, for all racial/ethnic groups, are shown in the chart below. FOCUS: Barriers to Beach Access Access to coastal ocean resources was generally not seen as a problem by most survey respondents: only 22% felt they did not enjoy adequate access to local beaches. Barriers respondents cited are listed in the adjacent figure, showing the percent of respondents who noted each barrier that affected them. Results showed that Latinos and Asian-Pacific Islanders were twice as likely to report barriers to access than other respondent groups. Approximately one quarter of all those who faced a barrier to beach access cited beach pollution as the primary factor keeping them from visiting the beach: almost half of Latino respondents indicated that their perceptions of beach pollution kept them from using the coastal zone's beaches. Though the vast majority of African American respondents felt they had adequate beach access, 45% of those who experienced barriers had trouble with transportation to the beach.

4 FOCUS: Latino Immigrants Latino immigrants comprise a significant population of Los Angeles. Almost half of LA County's population is Latino, of which 75% are immigrants. Latino immigrants, in particular, are likely to have characteristics that could impede access to open space for beach leisure and recreation: lower median household income, residence in dense, inland urban communities, less access to automobile transportation, and limited English skills. Since park space per capita in Los Angeles is most scarce in areas with the highest percentages of Latino residents, the beach is a vital recreational resource for these communities. While several studies have investigated park usage, this study is the first to focus on the beach in terms of use and access. The survey included 223 Latino immigrant respondents; this group was characterized by relatively low education levels and low-to-moderate household incomes with 94% earning less than $49,999 annually. Over 64% of this group listed Spanish as the primary language spoken at home, and almost half had children under age 18 living at home. With respect to beach use, our findings show that: 1. Almost three-quarters of Latino immigrant respondents visited the beach at least once over the two-year period prior to the survey. 2. The most common activities reported by nearly 90% of both men and women were sunbathing, swimming, or walking along the beach. 3. Regardless of age, gender, language, or duration of residence in the U.S., the most commonly cited barrier to beach use was pollution, with over 50% in each of these subsets citing it as their reason for not visiting the beach. Highlight: Latino respondents living in the U.S. longer than 20 years went to the beach less and participated in fewer activities than newer (less than five years in the U.S.) residents. Longer-term residents respondents were more likely to participate in water sports, perhaps reflecting superior income status. Activity and use patterns did not vary drastically by duration of residence in the U.S. Most differences that were present, however, occurred between new arrivals (less than five years in the U.S.) and the longest duration residents (more than 20 years in the U.S.). Newly arrived immigrants were more apt to use the beach, compared with those living in the U.S. longer than 20 years (see table below). These differences are possibly attributable to differences in family status (such as having younger children at home), age, and socio-economic status. Perhaps because it is a low-cost activity, those with fewer economic resources are able to visit the beach more frequently; also, newer residents tend to be younger, and younger respondents had higher rates of beach use. POLICY IMPLICATIONS # years in U.S. 0 days 1-3 days 4-11 days days < 5 17% 35% 29% 17% % 34% 30% 15% > 20 38% 30% 25% 6% Days Spent at the Beach over 2 Years, Latino Immigrants Varying reports of barriers to access across racial/ethnic groups suggest differential real and/or perceived barriers related to transportation and pollution, for example. Policy makers and educators could address such barriers through targeted programs such as providing better transportation from inland to coastal areas or increasing public education efforts relating to beach use safety. Targeted outreach and education programs to populations living in inland urban zones that include those most apt to report barriers to access, could increase awareness and stimulate interest in the marine environment.

5 Given the high proportion of Spanish speakers among Latino immigrants, bilingual signage throughout the coastal zone would improve coastal awareness for this significant share of the population.

6 Attitudes toward Marine Wildlife from the Attitudes toward Marine Wildlife Survey To understand how different people value the marine environment, and marine wildlife in particular, the USC Sea Grant survey included 35 questions to assess respondents' attitudes. Responses shed light on how different groups within the population perceive and value various marine resources, with a focus on marine wildlife. This section of Highlights presents findings about attitudes revealed by the survey and how attitudes differed across race/ethnic groups. The survey's attitude questions were classified into two broad value categories: anthropocentric and biocentric. Within these designations, we identified ten specific attitudes. Respondents could "agree/disagree" along a scale from strongly agree (+2) to strongly disagree (-2), with no opinion coded as zero. Thus we could rate respondents' strength of agreement or disagreement with particular attitude positions. Anthropocentric attitudes prioritize humans and value nature in terms of its benefits or costs to people. Specific anthropocentric attitudes are identified below, along with sample statements that illustrate the attitude. Utilitarian-stewardship : foremost interest in the practical value of animals and the natural environment "The most important reason to protect areas where fish mature and reproduce is to insure that people will have enough fish to eat in the future." Utilitarian-dominionistic: principal concern for the mastery or control of animals and nature "I think that recreational fishing is fine, regardless of whether you eat the fish you catch." Negativistic: fundamental interest in avoidance of animals due to indifference, dislike, or fear of animals "When I go to the beach, I don't go in the water because there might be unpleasant animals like jellyfish or crabs there." Aesthetic: primary interest in the physical attraction or beauty of animals and nature "If I had to choose, I'd rather snorkel than surf because snorkeling allows me to see beautiful fish." Animal welfare: principal concern for the right and wrong treatment of animals and nature "Keeping smart animals like seals and killer whales in aquariums is cruel." Supernatural: fundamental interest in the supernatural properties of animals and nature "I avoid some kinds of animals because they bring bad luck." Biocentric attitudes prioritize animals and nature and value the environment for its inherent value. Specific biocentric attitudes are identified below, along with sample statements from the survey. Environmental-naturalistic: primary interest in direct contact with wildlife in undisturbed, natural settings "If I were to support the protection of coastal marshes or wetlands, it would be to allow

7 seabirds to live in their natural habitat." Environmental-stewardship : principal concern for ecological characteristics of wildlife and natural habitats "The most important reason to prevent oil spills is because local populations of sea birds could be wiped out." Animals rights: foremost concern for the rights and well-being of individual animals "We should not keep marine animals in aquariums because they have the right to be free." Coexistence: primary interest in the harmonious coexistence between humans and animals "It's OK when pelican steal fish from commercial fishermen because pelicans have to eat, too." Highlight: One focus of our query of attitudes was attitudinal changes from respondents' childhood to adulthood. Half the survey respondents indicated a change in their attitudes about animals and the environment. Of those, almost 90% recognized a shift from never thinking about protecting the environment as a child to thinking about environmental protection as an adult. Ninety-five percent of respondents indicated that as adults they had a better understanding of the need for humans and animals to live together on Earth, and that they recognized how important animals are to our ecology. When asked why their attitudes had changed since childhood, the number one response (50% of those who indicated an attitudinal shift) was that they know more about animals now that they are adults. FOCUS: Overall Attitudes and Cultural Diversity Overall, respondents expressed Environmental-stewardship and Aesthetic attitudes most strongly. Animal Welfare, Animal Rights, and Environmental-naturalistic attitudes were also moderately strong. In contrast, Utilitariandominionistic and Utilitarian-stewardship attitude scores were weak. Differences in attitudes across racial/ethnic groups were notable, however (see figure below). The strongest contrasts were between Latinos and Asian-Pacific Islanders. Latinos were the most biocentric group overall, while Asian-Pacific Islanders were the most anthropocentric. Latinos had the highest overall Environmental-stewardship scores and also were more supportive of statements in favor of human-animal Coexistence. Asian-Pacific Islander respondents exhibited stronger Utilitarian attitudes than the other groups and were much less likely to support Animal Welfare statements. African Americans and Whites fell in the middle range of responses. Highlight: Asian-Pacific Islanders were the only group that expressed strong Utilitarian-dominionistic attitudes. For example, 70% of Asian-Pacific Islander respondents strongly agreed with the statement that recreational fishing is acceptable regardless of whether one ate the catch, compared to 51% of African Americans, 42% of Whites, and 35% of Latinos who agreed with the same statement.

8 FOCUS: Latinos and Biocentrism Mean Attitude Comparison - All Ethnic Groups More than other groups, Latinos expressed biocentric attitudes. With respect to Animal Rights sentiments, for example, over three quarters of Latinos strongly agreed that the fate of individual animals mattered to them. Latinos were also far more likely to feel that marine animals should not be kept in aquariums because they have the right to be free (almost two thirds compared to only 22% of Whites, 32% of Asian-Pacific Islanders, and 40% of African Americans). Environmental-naturalistic attitudes were more mixed. While 30 percent of Latinos moderately or strongly disagreed with the statement that it was nature's way for whales to become beached, however unfortunate, this was higher than for the other race/ethnic groups. Over three fourths of Latinos strongly agreed that we should protect wetlands to allow seabirds their natural habitat, and two thirds strongly agreed that it was never okay to interfere with wild animals (compared to a fifth of whites, a third of Asian-Pacific Islanders, and just over two-fifths of African Americans). POLICY IMPLICATIONS Policy makers need to be aware of cultural differences in attitudes toward marine wildlife when designing new policy initiatives. Efforts should be made to conduct group-specific analysis of attitudes toward prospective policy goals and implementation tools. Outreach efforts should be geared not to a general public but instead to subgroups within the population whose members can be expected to have substantially different attitudes toward, knowledge of, and experiences with marine wildlife and coastal issues. Attitudinal change from childhood to adulthood appears to be extensive and varies by cultural background, suggesting the need for ongoing monitoring. Our results suggest that policy makers, marine educators, and coastal resource managers need ongoing assessments of attitudes among southern California's dynamic population. Marine educational programs need to directly assess the cultural backgrounds of their client base and develop culturally sensitive programming, as well as programs to enhance cross-cultural knowledge and understanding. The fact that attitudes differ across race/ethnic groups in LA County suggests the importance of considering cultural difference in the activities of aquariums, museums of natural history, state and local recreation and parks departments, universities, and nonprofit organizations. Knowledge of demographic composition of current program users and participants is key to attracting diverse people as well as in designing exhibits and programming that more closely relates to the experiences, perceptions, and practices of different cultural groups.

9

10 Experience & Knowledge of Marine Wildlife from the Attitudes toward Marine Wildlife Survey In this section, we examine results from our survey that pertain both to respondents' interactions with marine wildlife and the coastal zone as well as their knowledge of local marine wildlife ecology. Survey questions related directly to people's individual experience and personal knowledge. Knowledge is typically related to attitudes and behavior and is known to vary according to educational attainment, as well as experience or interaction with wildlife. The baseline information we collected is valuable for educators interested in developing outreach materials for diverse clientele. FOCUS: Experiences with marine wildlife Most respondents had noticed marine animals, sea birds, or other types of marine animals while visiting the beach. In fact, only eight percent said they had not noticed any animals. Birds were the most common animal seen, primarily gulls and pelicans. Of those noticing animals over a third saw marine mammals, especially dolphins, seals and sea lions. About a fifth observed other marine animals, mostly crabs, lobsters, clams, or mussels. The figure below lists the percentages of people who saw particular marine animals during visits to the beach.

11 Highlight: People received information about the coastal environment from a wide variety of sources, and the information sources varied across racial/ethnic groups. For example, 70% of Latinos listed TV as one source of information about the beach or ocean-related issues compared to only 42% of Whites. FOCUS: Knowledge of threatened or endangered species Overall, respondents were moderately knowledgeable about threatened and endangered species. When asked which animals were either threatened with extinction or endangered, only a third identified the White Abalone, and even less (15%) identified the Least Tern. Forty-three percent incorrectly selected the White-sided Dolphin, and almost 18% incorrectly chose the Pacific Cormorant as threatened or endangered. The chart below shows successful idenitification of threatened or endangered species by respondents' race/ethnic subgroup. The results demonstrate a wide disparity in knowledge among different cultural groups. Highlight: An overwhelming majority of respondents, regardless of race/ethnicity, had little knowledge of the safety of eating certain local fish. In fact, almost three fourths of respondents had no knowledge that some local fish are unsafe to eat. Although African Americans were the group mostly likely to fish when visiting the beach (over 30% engaged in fishing), they had the least awareness of the safety of eating local fish. Over 85% were unaware that some fish are unsafe and no African American respondents correctly identified the specific types of fish that were unsafe to eat. While majorities of other racial/ethnic groups were also unaware of the safety of

12 eating local fish (with 73% White, 70% Asian Pacific Islander, and 68% Latino), African Americans are at particular risk because they are more apt to be fishers. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Knowledge of marine/coastal wildlife is uneven. Despite some knowledge about endangerment, many respondents were uninformed about the status of specific marine species. For example, popular, charismatic species like White-sided Dolphin were widely mistaken as endangered. This finding suggests the need for further efforts to educate coastal residents about the ecology and status of marine wildlife. Public health officials should intensify efforts to inform the public about fish pollution problems. Though African Americans were the most likely to fish and least likely to know of hazards of consuming locally caught fish, a majority of all respondents were unaware that some fish were unsafe to eat due to bioaccumulation of toxic pollutants. Sources of information about marine wildlife varied across groups according to cultural background. Respondents of different backgrounds rely on distinctive mixes of information sources. For example, Latinos were much more apt to get coastal/marine information from television than are other groups. Designers of public education campaigns need to understand how race/ethnic subgroups within the general public obtain information and create media-specific programs.

13 Understanding Tolerance and Stigma Relating to Animal Practices from the Attitudes toward Marine Wildlife Survey As the population of the Los Angeles region continues to become more culturally diverse, the ways different people make use of beaches and coastal resources will continue to expand. Often cultural practices of one group relating to marine animals or the coastal resource in general may be at odds with another group's beliefs and values. As part of the Attitudes toward Marine Wildlife survey, we queried people about both their tolerance of particular animal practices (such as whale hunting, eating turtle meat) and their perceptions of feeling looked down upon or stigmatized because of their own animal practices, for example, eating particular animals, or believing that animals have rights. [Photo courtesy US FWS] This section focuses on our results concerning the tolerance and feelings of stigma reported by survey respondents, related to animal practices. Though 18 questions in total were asked on these topices, not all related to marine animals. Here, we focus on the marine animal related questions and how the results link to overall attitudes toward marine wildlife. Highlight: Tolerance toward controversial animal practices varies by cultural background. The least tolerant group was Latinos, while Whites were the most tolerant. Asian-Pacific Islanders and African Americans, though in general less tolerant than Whites, were more tolerant of certain practices, primarily pertaining to food. FOCUS: Tolerance toward controversial animal practices Of the 18 questions asked about tolerance toward controversial animals practices, five specifically related to marine animals. Noting that people from other cultural backgrounds treat animals differently, respondents were asked if "it was OK" if other people engaged in: littering the beach; hunting and killing whales; eating sea turtles; collecting tidepool animals for food; and keeping animals, such as fish and seafood, alive until they are ready to be eaten. Overall, as can be seen in the table below, Whites were the most tolerant of these practices, and Latinos were least tolerant. Most respondents in all groups, however, were intolerant of whale hunting and eating turtles, and virtually no one tolerated littering on the beach. Further analysis showed that for all groups, women were far less tolerant than men. Also, those people who were more strongly in favor of dolphin protection, and to a lesser extent, tidepool protection, were less tolerant across race/ethnic groups.

14 We found that higher levels of tolerance toward controversial animal practices was linked to being male, having higher educational attainment and income, being a beach-goer, having more environmental knowledge, and favoring marine wildlife protection. Results also indicated that gender and race were significantly related to tolerance, with women and non-whites being less tolerant. But what is most interesting is that Latino respondents were uniformly less tolerant of the range of controversial animals practices, including those often associated with Latino culture, such as bullfights, dog and cockfighting, and horse tripping (a staple of traditional Mexican-style rodeo). FOCUS: Feelings of perceived stigma relating to animal practices Over 40% of those surveyed felt stigmatized - in other words, they felt that at some point in the past that others looked down on them or thought they were strange because of their interactions with animals. However, levels of perceived stigma associated with pet-keeping and training practices and animal food preferences were relatively low across the groups. Overall, Asian-Pacific Islanders were least apt to feel stigmatized, whereas African Americans were most likely. Modeling of the survey results confirm that immigrants may feel stigmatized because their practices, such as eating certain animals, may differ from the U.S. cultural norm. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Highlight: Almost 30% of African Americans who reported feelings of stigma felt they had been looked down upon because they believed that animals have rights like people. Just over 20% of the Latinos and Whites reporting some stigma also felt looked down upon because they felt animals had rights, while only 7% of Asian-Pacific Islanders reporting some feelings of stigma felt this way due to animal rights beliefs. Because tolerance toward controversial practices varies by cultural background, policy makers, marine educators, and advocacy groups must be aware of these cultural differences when developing marine wildlife (and other animal-related) policies for a diverse citizenry. Marine educational programs need to directly assess the cultural backgrounds of their client base and develop culturally sensitive programming and programs that enhance cross-cultural knowledge and understanding, thus reducing feelings of stigma. Knowing the demographic composition of current and potential program users could be vital in designing exhibits and programming that more closely relates to the experiences, perceptions, and practices of different groups in the Los Angeles region. Environmental and animal welfare organizations as well as concerned policy-makers and marine educators may usefully target subpopulations for education and outreach efforts since certain groups remain tolerant of undesireable marine animal practices like collecting tidepool animals for food and

15 eating sea turtles.

16 Background Attitudes toward Marine Wildlife Survey Attitudes toward Marine Wildlife among Residents of Southern California's Urban Coastal Zone, USC Sea Grant publication USCSG-TR , was written by Dr. Jennifer Wolch, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA. A grant from the US Sea Grant Program supported the research, for which we are most grateful. Other participants in the research project included Marcie Griffith, Unna Lassiter, and Jin Zhang. Chris Kahle wrote and edited the on-line Highlights series. We appreciate the assistance of USC Sea Grant Program personnel in planning this on-line series, especially Phyllis Grifman, Associate Director, and Lyndell Whitley, Educational Program Coordinator. The study consisted of a random telephone survey of 850 Los Angeles County residents over 18 years of age. The sample was designed to emulate the racial/ethnic composition of the county. The survey was translated into Spanish, Chinese, and Korean, and was administered by bilingual interviewers when necessary. Interviews were conducted Monday-Friday from 9:00am to 9:00pm and Saturday from 10:00am to 4:00pm. Respondents were each asked a series of 100 questions to probe attitudes, use, stance on policy issues, interactions and experiences, and knowledge involving marine wildlife and the coastal zone. The group was 35% White, 35% Latino, 12% African American, and 10% Asian-Pacific Islander. Almost 60% were born in the U.S., with the largest share of immigrants being from Mexico (18%). Almost 40% of all respondents reported speaking a language other than English at home. Respondents were nearly equally divided in terms of sex, most were under age 45 (54%), and over 60% did not have children living at home. The survey sample was somewhat split regarding socio-economic status. Although over half had completed at least some college, over 15% lacked a high school diploma and almost a quarter held only a high school degree. Not surprisingly, about 30% had household incomes over $50,000/year, while almost 20% had household incomes below $20,000/year.

17 NOAA HOME WEATHER OCEANS FISHERIES CHARTING SATELLITES CLIMATE RESEARCH COASTS CAREERSearch NMFS Site... Fisheries Home OPR Home Species Health & Stranding Permits Laws & Policies Conservation & Recovery Publications About About Us Programs Regions Science Centers Partners Congress Fisheries Resources Educators and Students News & Multimedia Get Involved Sign up for FishNews and other updates Fisheries Home» Protected Species» Laws & Policies Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) Overview The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) was enacted on October 21, All marine mammals are protected under the MMPA. The MMPA prohibits, with certain exceptions, the "take" of marine mammals in U.S. waters and by U.S. citizens on the high seas, and the importation of marine mammals and marine mammal products into the U.S. Congress passed the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 based on the following findings and policies: Some marine mammal species or stocks may be in danger of extinction or depletion as a result of human activities; These species or stocks must not be permitted to fall below their optimum sustainable population level ("depleted"); Measures should be taken to replenish these species or stocks; There is inadequate knowledge of the ecology and population dynamics; and Marine mammals have proven to be resources of great international significance. The MMPA was amended substantially in 1994 to provide: Certain exceptions to the take prohibitions, including for small takes incidental to specified activities, when access by Alaska Natives to marine mammal subsistence resources can be preserved, and permits and authorizations for scientific research; A program to authorize and control the taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations; Preparation of stock assessments for all marine mammal stocks in waters under U.S. jurisdiction; and Studies of pinniped-fishery interactions. How We Implement the MMPA Incidental Harrassment/Take Authorizations (Sec. 101) Permits (Sec. 104) Enforcement (Sec. 107) International Affairs (Sec. 108) Status Reviews (Sec. 115) Conservation Plans (Sec. 115) Stock Assessment Reports (by Region and by Species) (Sec. 117) Taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations (Sec. 118) Marine Mammal Authorization Program (MMAP) List of Fisheries (LOF) Take Reduction Program Co-Management with Alaska Native organizations (Sec. 119) Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program (MMHSRP) (Title IV) Stranding Networks and Stranding Coordinators (Sec. 403) Unusual Mortality Events (UMEs) (Sec. 404) Marine Mammal Unusual Mortality Event Fund (Sec. 405) National Marine Mammal Tissue Bank (NMMTB) (Sec. 407) Prescott Grant Program (Sec. 408) Celebrating over protecting marin Get the Facts MMPA Fact Shee Policies, Guidance, and Regulations MMPA Policies, Guidance, and Regulations More Information Full Text of the MMPA MMPA Annual Report Archive Marine Mammals Listed Under the Endangered Species Act Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports

18 Updated: June 14, 2013 Fisheries Service Inside NOAA Fisheries Home Information Quality Privacy Policy Feedback Disclaimer Search About Us Forms Newsroom Mission Strategic Plan Frequently Asked Questions Contact Us EEO & Diversity Work for NOAA Fisheries